Carbon dioxide has a negative effect on agriculture nutrition- putting 600 million people at risk.

Popular images of climate change include starving polar bears, rising sea levels and super-charged hurricanes. All are instances of justified concerns regarding anthropogenic climate change. However, other impacts, as exemplified here by the extensive evidence indicating a wide-spread decline in nutritional concentration of numerous plant species with rising [CO2], will also have profound and wide-ranging effects on numerous aspects of global biology, not least of which is human nutrition. These effects are not trivial. Weyant et al. [58] estimated that CO2-induced reductions in micronutrients such as zinc and iron in crops could result in an additional 125.8 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) globally, with South-East Asian and sub-Saharan African countries most affected. Zhu et al. [50] estimated 600 million people at risk past mid-century are in the highest rice-consuming countries in Asia with the lowest overall gross domestic product per capita. Beach et al. [32] projected a 2.4% to 4.3% penalty on expected gains in global availability of protein, iron and zinc by mid-century because of technology change, market responses and the fertilization effects of [CO2] on yield. It is clear that understanding these effects is fundamental and crucial to estimate the consequences not only for public health, but also for the transfer and adequate functioning of the global food web.

It is puzzling and perplexing that in looking at available resources to both broaden the scope of our understanding and assess the global outcomes of [CO2] and nutrition, there is a profound lack of academic support and funding. No programs regarding [CO2] and human nutrition currently exist at the National Institute of Health (NIH) and no RFAs at the National Science Foundation (NSF) exist to examine the role of [CO2] on nutrition as part of the global food web; yet, these are agencies that, ostensibly, are designed to address significant scientific issues, in the public’s interest. As Howard Frumkin wrote in Scientific American [59], at present the total research funding on climate change for all health consequences is approximately nine million dollars, or 0.02% of the NIH’s 40-billion-dollar budget.

We can and we must do better, not only in terms of [CO2], plant and nutritional consequences, but in our ability to address the problem of anthropogenic climate change. If there is an unseen benefit to the current pandemic, ignoring public health consequences that can affect millions of lives is no longer an option. The evidence is here. Action is needed.